- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2003 09:50:18 +0100
- To: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>
- Cc: Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Hi Graham, Its good that you are able to keep at least partialy in touch with things. Graham Klyne wrote: [...] > > While (reasonably, IMO) staying silent about what applications should do > if faced with text that is not well-formed RDF. What I write here is not advocacy, but I thought it might be helpful to pass on something I learned in a recent conversation with pfps. A point made by pfps is that the object of the triple represented in: _:a eg:prop "ten"^^xsd:integer . is well formed RDF according to the specs. "ten"^^xsd:integer does not denote a Literal, but it does denote something that is not a literal (if I've understood semantics properly). Similarly, " 10 "^^xsd:integer does not denote a literal according to the current specs (given an xsd:integer aware interpretation). Peter's point to me was that if it were an error, he would have no problem with suggesting automatic correction, but he does have a problem correcting something that is not an error. By analogy, imagine you are a comms driver and you get data with a hamming code for error correction. If you get data with that fails parity, its ok to correct it, but if you get data that passes the integrity check, its not ok to say you don't like it, and correct it anyway. Brian
Received on Friday, 29 August 2003 04:52:25 UTC